As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, it is often our moral intuitions that come first, rapidly or even automatically, with ethical reasoning coming later. Haidt's book is one of many that have come out in recent years highlighting the relevance of psychology (and its close cousin, neuroscience) for understanding human morality. As a behavioral scientist, I have devoured many of these books. I am fascinated by human nature and love trying to understand why all of us behave and (...) think the way we do. But as a physician ethicist, I often find myself reading these books with a parallel agenda: not just to understand human nature, but also to see whether this line of research has relevance for my work as an ethicist. My bottom line: Understanding moral psychology ought to be a required component of ethics training, not because the science will help us to differentiate between right and wrong, but because it will better equip us to teach ethics in a way that promotes moral behavior in our students. (shrink)

Aim: To explore whether the phrasing of the questions and the response alternatives would influence the answers to questions about legalisation of euthanasia.Methods: Results were compared from two different surveys in populations with similar characteristics. The alternatives “positive”, “negative”, and “don’t know” were replaced with an explanatory text, “no legal sanction”, four types of legal sanctions, and no possibility to answer “don’t know” . Four undergraduate student groups answered.Results: In the first questionnaire 43% accepted euthanasia , 14% did not, and (...) 43% answered “don’t know”. Two per cent of the respondents declined to answer. In comparison with previous surveys on attitudes to euthanasia the proportion of “don’t know” was large. The results of the second questionnaire , showed that 38% favoured “no legal prosecution” . However, 62% opted for different kinds of legal sanctions, and two of four groups expressed significantly different views in the two surveys. A proportion of 10% declined to answer the second questionnaire.Conclusion: An introduction of an explanatory text and a wider range of response alternatives produced differences between the results of the two surveys conducted. (shrink)